working paper_wersig_kmd - Freie Universität Berlin

Legal and social dimensions of the
male-breadwinner model in Germany
Berlin, November 2006
By Maria Wersig
Working Paper Nr. 3 in der Reihe:
Working Papers des Projekts „Ernährermodell“
FB Politik- und Sozialwissenschaften der FU Berlin , Otto-Suhr-Institut für Politikwissenschaft
URL dieses Papers: http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~ermodell/papers.html
IMPRESSUM
Herausgeberin und Projektleiterin: PD Dr. Sabine Berghahn
Das Forschungsprojekt “Ernährermodell“ wurde von der Hans-Böckler-Stiftung gefördert und
ist angesiedelt am Otto-Suhr-Institut für Politikwissenschaft der FU Berlin
Projektzeitraum: 1. Juni 2004 - 31. Mai 2006
The paper presents results of the interdisciplinary research project “"The system of marital
maintenance and the principle of subsidiarity in social law - are they substantial barriers for
gender equality? - The legal and political foundation of the German male-breadwinner
model", financed by the Hans-Böckler Foundation, situated at the Otto-Suhr-Institut for
Political Science of the Freie Universität Berlin from 1.6.2004 until 31.5.2006. Editor and
Head of the Project: PD Dr. Sabine Berghahn, berghahn@zedat.fu-berlin.de.
Author to whom correspondence should be sent: Maria Wersig; mwersig@zedat.fu-berlin.de.
Special thanks go to Kate Merritt Davis for her comments and correcting my English. All
remaining errors are my own.
Freie Universität Berlin
Otto-Suhr-Institut für Politikwissenschaft
Fachbereich Politik- und Sozialwissenschaften
Projekt „Ernährermodell“
Ihnestr. 22
14195 Berlin
Tel.: 030/ 838-57030, 030/ 838-52984
berghahn@zedat.fu-berlin.de,
mwersig@zedat.fu-berlin,
ermodell@zedat.fu-berlin.de
Legal and social dimensions of the male-breadwinner model in Germany
Maria Wersig
Summary
German women find it more difficult than men to establish financial independence
through the labour market (and social security benefits) and are often dependent on the
income of the ir husbands or partners. The structural inequalities between women and men
in welfare state regimes are described by empirical scholars as a result of the malebreadwinner model. The German welfare state is the prototypical example of a
conservative welfare regime (Esping-Andersen 1990) and a strong male-breadwinner
model (Lewis/ Ostner 1994). Its legal basis lies in the strict division of the public and
private sphere, founded by alimony law and the protection of marriage as a constitutional
value and right. Although regulations appear to be sex-neutral in terms of wording, the
gendered impact is the financial dependence that women have on men, due to inadequate
personal entitlements to social security benefits and the priorities given to alimony based
on means-tested benefits. This raises questions concerning equality law and efficient
strategies for change. This paper aims to identify the elements of the male-breadwinner
model within the German legal system to show the interrelation between apparently
neutral regulations, and to describe the influence of these issues upon men and women (as
groups and individuals).
Introduction
The concept of citizenship is central in the analysis of the gendered dimension of welfare states.
Feminist welfare-state research in the social sciences has shown how welfare states, to differing
degrees, have developed a poor quality of citizenship for women as they neglect the specific
conditions of women’s social rights (Orloff, 1993; Sainsbury 1994). In these terms Germany
has been described as a strong male-breadwinner model because it gives strong incentives to
married couples with children and is designed to economically support husbands and fathers in
their breadwinner function (Ostner/Lewis 1994). Although current research observes changes
towards an adult-worker model across Europe (Lewis 2001), the decline of the malebreadwinner model is not to be regarded as a matter of course. In Germany it seems to be a
persistent part of current policy, although gender equality is claimed to be an important aim of
the agenda.
This includes incentives for marriage and a traditional division of labour between husband and
wife, in the now predominant ly accepted modern variation: the husband who works full-time
and the wife who works part-time because of her family responsibilities. The usually lower
income of the wife is therefore regarded as an addition to the family income that continues to be
mainly provided by the male-breadwinner. Care work is essentially to be secured through
Maria Wersig
Legal and social dimensions of the male-breadwinner model in Germany
private transfers or mediated entitlements between the spouses (maintenance) rather than
individualized entitlements to social security or social assistance benefits. The consequence is a
lower income of women and financial dependence on others. This problem is especially obvious
after divorce, when women are more dependent on maintenance than men and suffer significant
financial losses (Andreß et. al. 2003).
As Tove Stang Dahl has put it, an “…independent income of one’s own is a prerequisite for
participation in and enjoyment of life in a number of respects, privately as well as publicly”
(Stang Dahl 1984, p.137). Still, as a rule, German women find it more difficult than men to
establish financial independence through work or claims to social security benefits and are more
often dependent on the income of the husband or partner. Although recent welfare state reforms
of the labour- market policy have stressed the principle of self-responsibility, this principle still
seems to apply to families and marriages rather than individuals. This paper aims to identify the
elements of the male-breadwinner model within the Germa n legal system. Although regulations
appear to be sex-neutral in terms of their wording, the gendered impact is the financial
dependence that women have on men. I will argue that the concept of marital maintenance and
its structural impact on other areas of law is the core of the male-breadwinner model in
Germany. First, I will outline the structural inequalities of women’s labour market participation
and income sources on the basis of current data. Second, the German concept of maintenance
law, its role in shaping the legal system, as well as the constitutional concept of marriage, will
be described. Finally, the recent changes of benefits in case of unemployment will be discussed
and the question of indirect discrimination raised.
Structural Inequalities
Although the participation of women in the labour market has been growing constantly within
the last decade, the labour market participation of women and men still greatly differs. Many
often interrelated factors are to be taken into account that can not all be tackled in this paper:
part-time work, unequal pay, job segregation, unequal division of labour in the home and poor
availability of childcare. While these patterns do not affect all women in the same way, they do
play a part in reinforcing the differences between groups of women. Other important
dimensions of difference not addressed in this paper include: class, educational background,
citizenship, age, and race.
In 2003, the employment rate of women aged between 15 and 65 added up to 65 %, that rate for
men was 80 % (Bothfeld 2005). The growing labour market participation of women in
Germany has largely been accounted for by the growth in part-time work. Between 1992 and
2002 the number of women in full-time employment has actually decreased but part time work
has increased greatly (see chart 1). The growing employment rate of West German women aged
-2-
Maria Wersig
Legal and social dimensions of the male-breadwinner model in Germany
between 35 and 55 is entirely attributed to their growing engagement in part-time work. In East
Germany, the growth (from 13 -23%) of part-time employment by women in this age group has
prevented a drop of the employment rate of women.
CHART 1: LABOUR FORCE PARTICIPATION OF WOMEN IN EAST GERMANY AND
WEST GERMANY 1992-2002 (%)
AGE GROUP
EAST GERMANY
WEST GERMANY
1992
2002
1992
2002
EMPLOYED
63
63
62
58
FULL-TIME
41
36
43
31
PART-TIME
13
18
11
16
IN EDUCATION
9
9
9
12
EMPLOYED
66
73
75
76
FULL-TIME
36
34
61
53
PART-TIME
29
39
13
23
IN EDUCATION
0
0
0
0
16-34 YEARS
35-55 YEARS
Statistisches Bundesamt (Federal Statistical Office) 2004, p.504
The labour market participation rate of married women is significantly lower than that of
unmarried women: twice as many unmarried women work full time hours (36 and more hours
per week) as married women. The majority of married women work part-time. Still, there are
crucial differences regarding views and habits between East Germany, e.g. the former socialist
part, and West Germany. In East Germany motherhood and marriage have no significant impact
on the labour force participation of women. In 2003, in a survey of East German mothers who
worked part-time, 52 % stated that their reason for doing so was that they could not find a fulltime job. Only 5 % of West German mothers gave this reason; for them, the predominant
grounds for working part-time were family obligations (81 %). An important source of income
for many women is the sharing of income earned or received by others (mostly by a male
partner).
Alimony Law And The Gendered Division of Labour
These different lifestyles are being declared by the legal profession as the result of individual
choices rather than regulations. The reason for this view is that West German Family Law
officially abandoned the model of the “housewife marriage” in the 1970s. Since then, however,
this notion has not been replaced by a clear commitment to an adult worker-caregiver model.
Instead, the contribution to family life by care work and paid work was declared to be equal.
-3-
Maria Wersig
Legal and social dimensions of the male-breadwinner model in Germany
This equa lity was not supported by financial security for the predominantly female caregivers
through social security benefit systems or sufficient attempts to integrate women into the labour
market. Maintenance law attempted to establish this security, by assigning the responsibility to
the family sphere through private transfers. Marriage is still understood as a means of securing
the existence of women. This is closely linked with the gendered division of labour and the
assignment of women into the private sphere.
As previously mentioned, the model of the “housewife marriage” was exchanged for a sexneutral model with the reform of family law in 1976. Before then, family law upheld a concept
of difference – husband and wife had different roles within the family assigned to them. The
wife was responsible for care work, the husband’s role was providing for the financial needs of
the family. Since then labour force participation and unpaid care work were declared to be
equally valuable and the decision about the division of labour viewed as a private decision
without interference though the state. In the 1976 reform it was also necessary to modernize
divorce law and change from strict fault-based grounds for divorce to the more liberal concept
of “deep and permanent breakdown of the marriage ”.
Within this context a new model of maintenance law also had to be established (within the
fault-based model maintenance obligations were assigned according to fault). The Social
Democratic Party (SPD) favoured a model of equality, all adults sho uld be workers and there
would be no long-lasting need for maintenance after divorce. The Christian Democratic parties
(CDU/CSU) stressed the point that the traditional model of marriage still had to be made
possible. It was believed by a majority of political actors that it would lead to hardship for
many women if alimony entitlements would be taken away. This point of view was also taken
by women’s groups. They argued that married women, having lived many years as housewives
and mothers and therefore kept out of the labour market through family policy, could not be
expected to join the labour market as soon as the marriage had ended. This political conflict
ended with a compromise: after marriage, the principle of self-reliance would make up
maintenance law, while legal reasons providing for entitlements to maintenance claims after
divorce would be designed to keep lifelong entitlements to payments possible. The obligation to
work after divorce was restricted to work that was suitable (angemessen) according to the
standard of living reached through marriage. This regulation attempted to recognize the wife’s
contribution to the family’s standard of living through care work. She should not be expected to
fall back on the standard of living she had before the ma rriage. In a certain way, post-divorce
maintenance law has taken a very considerate point of view towards women by finding many
reasons why they should not be expected to work. Even when this political compromise was
crafted it was very much debated if an ex-husband should be expected to pay maintenance for
risks that did not result from marriage (for example unemployment). Recently the debate across
-4-
Maria Wersig
Legal and social dimensions of the male-breadwinner model in Germany
political parties has challenged these regulations and demanded shorter duration and fewer
grounds for entitlements to maintenance after divorce and a more strict examination of the
cause of maintenance claims. Considerations like the duration of the marriage and decisions
about the division of labour by the partners will then be used to determine the duration of
maintenance entitlements. The most legitimate reason to claim maintenance will be for the care
of children (a reform will very likely come into force in 2007).
Maintenance obligations exist not only after marriage but also during marriage, called family
maintenance (Familienunterhalt; §1360 BGB). Family maintenance is not conceived in terms of
money (except for housekeeping and spending money for the housewife) but as an obligation to
work towards the wellbeing of the family, no matter if this happens through paid work or care
work (Scholz 2004, § 3 Rn. 1)1 . Therefore, within marriage an individualized principle of selfreliance does not exist; the spouses are viewed as a unit which works together to secure each
others’ existence (and that of any children).
This principle does not only structure family law but is found in other le gal aspects where
maintenance obligations are often taken into account. For instance, this can be found in income
tax law and the law of social assistance benefits; elements are also found within employment
law. By relying on and considering private maintenance obligations these areas of law, as will
now be argued, shape strong incentives for the male-breadwinner model.
Income Tax Law
In income tax law (Einkommenssteuer), the obligation of the breadwinner’s alimony is taken
into account through the joint taxation of married spouses with an income-splitting tariff.
Because of the progression of the tax scale, the reduction to half the taxable income results in
the greatest savings if only one partner earned it. This form of taxation is criticised as
privileging marriages with a single breadwinner or a significant difference between the spouses
income: they achieve a tax reduction that dual-earner couples are not able to achieve
(Sacksofsky 2000, p.1898; Vollmer 1998, p. 127). Feminists argue this form of taxation makes
the usually lower income of the woman seem more dispensable, her work is only then
economically advantageous for the family if she can earn more than the tax savings would be.
Taking into account the inadequate child-care infrastructure and the fact that child-care
expenses cannot be set off against tax liability (with the amount actually spent but a lump-sum
for every parent), the incentive for married mothers to reduce their labour market participation
is high. On the other hand, many do not share this point of view and stress the point that there
1
Because of the special nature of the claim it is hardly ever enforced by legal action.
-5-
Maria Wersig
Legal and social dimensions of the male-breadwinner model in Germany
has to be taxation according to financial ability and that the family maintenance obligation
reduces that ability of the breadwinner. The constitutional protection of marriage upholds the
free decision about the division of labour between husband and wife and therefore the
breadwinner situation has to be taken into account by income tax law. Spouses with two
incomes are therefore not disadva ntaged because their financial ability is to be judged
differently (Kirchhof 2000, 2003). The Federal Constitutional Court has not made a clear
statement about the splitting tariff so far. It noted in 1982 that the taxation of spouses cannot be
subject to any regulation. The income-splitting, it argued, would enable the spouses to freely
decide about their division of labour. Although it should not be considered a tax privilege but a
form of taxation according to financial ability, the Court also pointed out the prerogative of
legislation for deciding on a different regulation. Critics of the income-splitting deduct from this
last point that there are other ways available to tax married couples. Defenders of incomesplitting use the ruling to argue that this form of taxation is necessary to comply with the
constitution.
Since 2001, homosexual partners can enter into a legally recognized partnership similar to
marriage, the “eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft.” In terms of maintenance obligations this
partnership is crafted after the model of marriage. Even though this is the case, the incomesplitting option has not been opened to them and they are still taxed individually. Several
Finance Courts have rejected the application of income-splitting rules on homosexual
partnerships and stressed the point that the income-splitting exists for married couples only,
because only they are protected by the constitution.
Income tax is collected on a monthly pay-as-you-earn basis (Lohnsteuer), where the
breadwinner-income is once more privileged. The pay-as-you-earn income tax is calculated by
taking differences between spouses’ incomes into account. If such differences exist almost all
tax exempt amounts of both persons are used to reduce the monthly tax burden of the person
with the higher income (Spangenberg 2005). The person who earns less pays part of the
breadwinner’s taxes and therefore has a reduced amount available at the end of the month. Yet
it seems more economically advantageous to tax this way if the couple’s income is viewed as
one unit that lumps together. In the annual adjustment of income tax there will usually be a
repayment. However, in social security law many benefits are calculated based on the monthly
income after deductions – married women’s entitlements are therefore often lower. That this
specific way of collecting income tax from married couples is also protected by Article 6 I GG
can hardly be argued. A reform has been demanded for many years but only in 2005 were
preparations finally being made, though that have not yet reached conclusion. However, the
achievement of more ge nder equality does not seem to be the first priority of changing the
Lohnsteuer, but to simplify administration (Spangenberg 2005).
-6-
Maria Wersig
Legal and social dimensions of the male-breadwinner model in Germany
Social Benefits – The “Hartz IV” Reform
Not only in German social security schemes has there been criticism for providing security for
male risks and the male model of working life - the financial security of women and female
risks (as care work) has traditionally, especially in Germany, been mediated through the
husband. The direct entitlement to benefits has only gradually been implemented in social
security law, an example is inclusion of child care as a le gal basis for pension entitlements 2 .
Very much discussed in recent years, and until now not sufficiently resolved, has been the
access of short hour part-time workers to social security benefits.
Because the access to social security benefits is in many ways inadequate, means-tested benefits
have been the basic net for a lot of women. The smallest unit of means-testing, ho wever, is not
the individual but the couple. The income of the partner as possible maintenance plays a role in
determining the need of the claimant. Benefits of the basic net are therefore only available if the
spouse cannot provide. This principle of subsidiary has structured social assistance (Sozialhilfe)
and, since January 1 st , 2005, has become part of the new unemployment allowance
(Arbeitslosengeld II). Through a number of new laws, called the “Hartz-Reforms”, the German
labour market policy has been reformed between 2003 and 2005. The main elements of the
Hartz reforms were the commitment to an active emp loyment policy, the restructuring of the
unemployment administration, and, through a law informally called “Hartz IV,”3 the
introduction in 2005 of a new basic benefit called unemployment allowance (Arbeitslosengeld
II).
The unemployment allowance was designed to secure the subsistence level (Existenzminimum)
and is strictly subsidiary to other forms of income, the last resort scheme for people between 15
and 65. This new allowance replaced the former social assistance (Sozialhilfe), a strictly meanstested benefit, and the unemployment aid (Arbeitslosenhilfe), a hybrid system financed by tax
revenues which was only available after the social security scheme unemployment benefit
(Arbeitslosengeld) was no longer paid. It was oriented on the former net income (57% for
parents, 53% for childless) but reduced means-testing also applied. After the reform, if there are
no entitlements to the social security scheme unemployment benefit (Arbeitslosengeld) 4 and the
2
Although, as Ott 2003 has shown, it is (in German pension schemes) still more economically advantageous to work than
to care for children.
3
Because it was the fourth law passed as part of the so-called “Hartz”-Reforms, the official title of the now in force law is
Sozialgesetzbuch II Grundsicherung für Arbeitsuchende (SGB II).
4
This can be the case for several reasons: the period of elegibility is only one year, also low hour part time employed and
self-employed do not have the option to enter into the social security scheme.
-7-
Maria Wersig
Legal and social dimensions of the male-breadwinner model in Germany
claimants fulfill the means-testing and other requirements 5 , they are entitled to unemplo yment
allowance (Arbeitslosengeld II). Because the unemployment allowance was designed as a
family allowance, the incomes of partners are also taken into account. Therefore the financial
need of the members of the household group 6 is calculated and added jointly. Components of
the household group (Bedarfsgemeinschaft) are adult jobseekers (erwerbsfähige
Hilfebedürftige), their partners, and any children. The need is defined to be 345 € in West
Germany and 331 € in East Germany for all living expenses; there are extra payments for rent
and heating. If there are two adults members of the household group then they are only entitled
to 90% of that sum. The means to satis fy the basic needs are provided if income 7 or other
resources of both partners are not sufficient to cover these needs. If this is the case, all members
of the household group that are able to work 3 hours a day and not currently engaged in
education are expected to actively look for work and accept almost any job (no matter if it is
less qualified or paid than their previous work or in a different occupation). It is argued by the
government that this is an improvement for women because they become “clients” of the
unemployment administration. Former “housewives” would be expected to work and contribute
to the family’s income. To summarize the concept: if there is a breadwinner present, the rest of
the family should not work. If there isn’t, they all should work to provide for the fa mily.
Although this means-testing rule is sex-neutral in wording, it is strongly suspected of having a
gendered impact. Because of the specific way women work and earn, they are more likely to
have a partner that can act as breadwinner than vice versa. Women’s groups and unions have
made this argument during the legislation process and warned that steps should be taken to deal
with this. For those women who have received unemployment aid (Arbeitslosenhilfe), it would
be a drawback because the means-testing would result in cut-backs on their benefits more often
than before, though the former statistics of means-testing of unemployment aid reveal two
thirds of the claimants rejected (based on income of a partner) were women (see chart 2).
5
Aged between 15 and 65, not currently engaged in an education, able to work at least 3 hours a day, actively looking for
work and signed the jobseekers -agreement (Eingliederungsvereinbarung).
6
The new, shaped through the new law, German word is „Bedarfsgemeinschaft“, it translates word -to-word as “household
community of needs”.
7
Income is defined as every source of money. From income is to be deducted: taxes, costs of insurance and social security
contributions, expenses necessary to achieve the income (at least 100 €); §11 SGB II.
-8-
Maria Wersig
Legal and social dimensions of the male-breadwinner model in Germany
CHART 2: REJECTED CLAIMS TO UNEMPLOYMENT AID (ARBEITSLOSENHILFE) 20002003 ON GROUNDS OF PARTNER- INCOME (%)
n % of female claimants rejected ¨ % of partner-income as grounds for rejection during means -testing
An analysis of the data from 2005 caqnnot be presented at this point as it has not been
published, though it does not seem likely that the gendered impact of means-testing will
disappear. Also, the claimants who do not receive benefits will still have trouble receiving other
forms of support. The Sozialgesetzbuch II does not apply to them, because they are not
considered “needy.” Therefore, they cannot receive other forms of support from the Jobcenters
that carry out the Sozialgesetzbuch II, such as money for necessary childcare expenses. Instead
they have to apply for help with another administration, the Arbeitsagentur (for the unemployed
who receive social security unemployment money). There they have fewer claims that go
largely unenforced. Also, the Arbeitsagentur primarily tries to reintegrate the more “expensive”
unemployed recipients of social security benefits rather than other claimants. An empirical
analysis was carried out as part of our research project in Berlin of those persons who do not
receive benefits due to their partners income. It showed that East German women find it
especially difficult to deal with the situation as they feel unwillingly pressed into the model of
the West German “housewife marriage.” But married couples are not the only ones affected,
because means-testing also applies to heterosexual persons living together as if they were
married (the legal term is “eheähnlich” - alike- marriage) as well as homosexual persons that
have entered the legally recognized partnership “eingetragene Lebenspartnerschaft.” The reason
for this is to be found in constitutional law.
-9-
Maria Wersig
Legal and social dimensions of the male-breadwinner model in Germany
Marriage in German Constitutional Law
In the Grundgesetz8 , Article 6 I (Rights of the Family) states that “Marriage and family shall
enjoy the special protection of the state.” Marriage is conceptualized in constitutional law as a
place of security, a safe haven. It is a strong shared belief that the state should protect, yet not
intrude into, the private family-sphere 9 . Part of this understanding of protection and guaranteed
freedom from intrusion is the decision about the division of labour between the spouses. The
traditional “housewife marriage” has to remain an option, it is argued. Protection is also
interpreted as providing access to the institution of marriage which must not be blocked by
incentives that make marriage unattractive compared to other lifestyles. The charges and
restrictions of marriage therefore have to be extended to non- married couples.
This point of view is especially relevant in the law of means-tested social benefits where the
means-testing not only takes into account the income of the marriage partners but also that of
heterosexual non-married partners. This is problematic since these non- married couples share
no legal maintenance obligations (there are no other legally recognized forms of partnerships
for heterosexual couples besides marriage, especially no regulations of co-habitation). How
close the partners have to be to legitimize these consequences has been much discussed lately,
as many couples have been confronted with these obligations through the “Hartz IV” reform. In
199210 , the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that no unmarried couple could be subject to the
rigid means-testing of the then in-force unemployment aid (Arbeitslosenhilfe) - only those
couples whose relationship could be considered similar to a marriage (eheähnlich) were subject.
No heterosexual partnership falls under a term similar to a marriage (eheähnlich), the ruling of
the Federal Constitutional Court maintaining that there have to be close bonds (as those existing
in a marriage) that cause the willingness and expectation to secure each other’s existence. The
administrative process by which the existence of these bonds can be deducted from evidence
remains controversial. Though the notion that “Eheähnlichkeit” does not exist if the couple does
not cohabitate, Social Courts have not approved the deduction on basis of cohabitation alone.
Though other indicators, such as children or a joint account, are sought, finding evidence of a
financially able partner by visiting suspected claimants at home to look for a shared bedroom or
wardrobe as evidence for “eheähnliche” relationships is still attempted. Many couples have
taken legal actions against the consequences of means-testing by denying the “Eheähnlichkeit”
and succeeded, because the administration could not provide acceptable evidence. Now the
political debate has changed course - a paper published by the Federal Ministry of Employment
8
Basic Law, German Constitution.
The private sphere is of cource not entirely inaccessible to the law, abuse and (sexual) violence are not accepted and
battled with several legal strategies.
10
BVerfG 17.11.1992, NJW 1993, p. 643.
9
- 10 -
Maria Wersig
Legal and social dimensions of the male-breadwinner model in Germany
in August 2005 stressed the moral obligation to share in the hour of need and accused couples
not doing so to be parasites within the “Volks” –body (BMWA 2005). The new coalition of
CDU/CSU and SPD has therefore decided to look for ways to change the definition of
“Eheähnlichkeit” and to assign of the burden of proof to the claimant rather than the
administration (Koalitionsvertrag 2005).
Indirect Discrimination
The ability to cope with the problems of indirect discrimination seems to be promising. It is a
concept in European law as well as German constitutional law. As I have shown, there are
several elements of the male-breadwinner model that could possibly be viewed as indirect
discrimination. I will now focus on the effects of the basis of means-testing of the
unemployment allowance (Arbeitslosengeld II). Although the most recent data cannot be used
at this point to support the argument, it is very likely that the rules of means-testing for the
unemployment allowance (Arbeitslosengeld II) have the effect that more women than men are
ineligible for benefits because of the income of the partner.
In European Law, Directive 79/7/EEC is most applicable because it is directly concerned with
social benefits. Article 4 (1) of Directive 79/7/EEC states that there shall be no “discrimination
on grounds of sex either directly or indirectly by reference in particular to marital or family
status.” The material scope of the directive applies to “statutory schemes that provide protection
against sickness, invalidity, old age, accidents at work and occupational diseases, and
unemployment” (Article 3 (1) (a)). “Social assistance in so far as it is intended to supplement or
replace the schemes referred to” is also covered by the Directive. General social assistance
schemes that provide benefits regardless of the cause of poverty cannot come within the
material scope of the Directive. The ECJ has decided that a general social assistance scheme
that is paid cannot be viewed as a “supplement” (and therefore does not come into the material
scope of the directive 11 ) if other schemes provid ing protection against unemployment do not
apply and expect the claimants to accept job-offers. Basically, this means benefits that are
generally intended to provide against poverty, as opposed to one of the risks covered by the
Directive, can not come within the material scope of the Directive. As Sohrab noted in 1996,
Member States can bring schemes out of the scope of Directive 79/7/EEC simply by
redesigning them (Sohrab 1996, p.96). Since the provision of basic social benefits for everyone
is a part of the European Employment Strategy, the spread of a basic means-tested benefits net
across Member States is particularly regrettable, as other sources of European Law are not
concerned with access to social assistance benefits.
11
13
Jackson and Cresswell v. Cief Adjudication Officer, Joined Cases C-63/91 and C 64/91 (1992) ECR I-4737.
BVerfG v. 18. 11. 2003, Az: 1 BvR 302/96, NZA 2004 S.33-39; BVerfG v. 5.4.2005, Az: 1 BvR 774/02, DStR 2005
S.1244-1247.
- 11 -
Maria Wersig
Legal and social dimensions of the male-breadwinner model in Germany
Therefore I shall turn to German Constitutional Law. Within German Constitutional Law, the
concept of indirect discrimination has not been as extensively applied and enhanced through
case law as it has in European law. However, the Federal Constitutional Court has used the
principle and applied it lately in two important cases. It has based the rulings on Article 3 II
GG: “Men and women shall have equal rights. The state shall promote the actual
implement ation of equal rights for women and men and take steps to eliminate disadvantages
that now exist.”
In a case concerning maternity leave (Mutterschutz), that principle comes into force 6 weeks
prior to and 8 weeks after delivery. Emp loyers had argued that their share of continuation of
wage-payments during that period would violate their constitutional right to freely choose their
trade or profession (Article 12 I GG). The Federal Constitutional Court negated this and pointed
out, instead, that the state is obliged to design protective regulations in a way that minimizes the
danger of discriminatory effects in social reality. Because there was no apportionment
procedure between companies with more than 20 employees the court found the § 14 I MuSchG
(Mutterschutzgesetz) to be a potential restraint of employment of women and therefore
incompatible with Article 3 II GG.
In a more recent decision, the Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that Article 3 (2) GG aims
to provide equal circumstances in the lives of women and men and therefore concerns itself
with social reality13 . The enforcement of equality, the Court judged, is constrained by
regulations that are sex-neutral by wording but because of biological differences or social
conditions affect more women than men. It is therefore not important for the material scope of
Article 3 (2) GG if unequal treatment is the result of direct or indirect discrimination. The court
had to answer a question concerning the German Pension Fund of Lawyers (Versorgungswerk
der Rechtsanwälte) 14 . Within the pension funds, high monthly payments arose even during
parental leave (Elternzeit) when there might not be sufficient income to cover them. This could
only be avoided by resigning the ent itlement of practicing as a lawyer during parental leave, a
decision that would entail several disadvantages. The court argued that in social reality women
are predominately responsible for care work and parental leave and are therefore predominantly
affected by the regulation.
This indirect discrimination would then have to be justified based on reasonable grounds. Since
the financial stability of the Pension Fund would not be affected by a me mbership free of
charges during parental leave, the Federal Constitutional Court judged that this was not the case.
According to the unemployment allowance (Arbeitslosengeld II), one would have to ask for
reasonable grounds. The reason for the strict subsidiary is of a financial nature – an
individua lized concept of means-testing would cost the state a great deal more. So the question
14
BVerfG v. 5.4.2005, Az: 1 BvR 774/02, DStR 2005 S.1244-1247.
- 12 -
Maria Wersig
Legal and social dimensions of the male-breadwinner model in Germany
remains whether financial considerations can legitimize indirect discrimination of women. The
political answer to this is that they do not suffer any hardship because they are cared for by their
spouses.
Conclusion
The concept of maintenance and marriage plays an important role in shaping the gendered
division of labour and the access of women to independent income in Germany. Within a
political system where both men and women are better integrated into the labour market – like
the Nordic Model - the forces I have described would have little effect. As German policy has
never taken steps towards that model beyond wording, marriage and maintenance preserve the
male-breadwinner model and the division of the public and the private. Further research should
determine why the criticised elements of this male-breadwinner model have proved to be so
resistant to change. To recap, the “Hartz IV” reform has been attacked by many feminists while
tax law’s income-splitting tariff has been debated for many years, yet there have been no
changes. It also seems necessary that future research should include a comparative dimension
focusing on the gendered impact of redesigned regulations of the welfare state in different
countries and the princ iples they follow.
References
Andreß, Jürgen Borloh, Barbara/
Güllner, Miriam/ Wilking, Katja
(2003)
Wenn aus Liebe rote Zahlen werden. Über die wirtschaftlichen
Folgen von Trennung und Scheidung. Wiesbaden 2003.
Berghahn, Sabine (2004)
Ist die Institution Ehe eine Gleichstellungsbarriere im
Geschlechterverhältnis in Deutschland?, Oppen, Maria; Simon,
Dagmar (ed.): Verharrender Wandel. Institutionen und
Geschlechterverhältnisse, Berlin, 99-138.
BMWA 2005 (Bundesministerim
für Wirtschaft und Arbeit)
Vorrang für die Anständigen - Gegen Missbrauch, `Abzocke`
und Selbstbedienung im Sozialstaat. Ein Report vom
Arbeitsmarkt im August 2005.
Bothfeld, Silke (2005)
Arbeitsmarkt. In: WSI FrauenDatenReport 2005, 109-186.
Esping-Andersen, Gosta (1990)
The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge.
Hausen, Karin (1997)
Arbeiterinnenschutz, Mutterschutz und gesetzliche
Krankenversicherung im Deutschen Kaiserreich und in der
Weimarer Republik. Zur Funktion von Arbeits- und Sozia lrecht
für die Normierung und Stabilisierung der
Geschlechterverhältnisse. In: Gerhard, Ute (ed):Frauen in der
Geschichte des Rechts. München, 713-743.
Kirchhof, Paul (2000)
Ehe- und familiengerechte Gestaltung der Einkommensteuer,
NJW 2000, 2792 .
Kirchhof, Paul (2003)
Die Einkommenbesteuerung von Ehegatten während des Zusammenlebens und im Falle von Trennung und Sche idung,
- 13 -
Maria Wersig
Legal and social dimensions of the male-breadwinner model in Germany
FPR 2003, 387-390.
Koalitionsvertrag (2005)
Gemeinsam für Deutschland. Mit Mut und Menschlichkeit,
11.11.2005.
Leitner, Sigrid (1999)
Frauen und Männer im Wohlfahrtsstaat: zur strukturellen
Umsetzung von Geschlechterkonstruktionen in sozialen
Sicherungssystemen. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main, Berlin,
1999.
Lewis, Jane (2001)
The decline of the male breadwinner model: implications for
work and care, Social Politics 2, 152-169.
Lewis, Jane/ Ostner, Ilona (1994)
Gender and the
Evolution of European Social Policies. Arbeitspapier No. 4,
Zentrum für Sozialpolitik der Universität Bremen, Bremen.
Orloff, Ann (1993)
Gender and the Social Rights of Citizenship: the Comparative
Analysis of Gender Relations and Welfare States.In: American
Sociological Review 58(3), p.303-328.
Ott, Notburga (2003)
Besser kein Job oder keine Kinder? Zur Rolle der
Sozia lversicherungssysteme für die Vereinbarkeit von Familie
und Beruf, in: Lange, Joachim (Hg.) Kinder und Karriere.
Sozial- und Steuerpolitische Wege zur Vereinbarkeit von Beruf
und Familie, Loccumer Protokolle 56/2002, pp. 123-.
Rosenfeld, Rachel A./Trappe,
Heike /Gornick, Janet C. (2004)
Gender and Work in Germany: Before and After Reunification.
In: Annual Review of Sociology 30, 103-124.
Sacksofsky, Ute (1998)
Steuerung der Familie durch Steuern, NJW 2000,1896-1903.
Sainsbury, Diane (ed.) (1994)
Gendering Welfare States. London.
Scholz, Harald (2004)
Ehegattenunterhalt. In: Wendl, Philipp /Staudigl, Siegfried
(ed.):Das Unterhaltsrecht in der familienrichterlichen Praxis.
München.
Schratzenstaller, Margit (2003)
Frauen und Männer im deutschen Steuersystem. In: Wrede,
Birgit (ed.):Geld und Geschlecht. Tabus, Paradoxien,
Ideologien. Opladen,103-116.
Sohrab, Julia A. (1996)
Sexing the Benefit. Women, Social Security and Financial
Independece in EC Sex Equality Law. Brookfie ld.
Spangenberg, Ulrike (2005)
Hans-Böckler-Stiftung Arbeitspapier Nr. 106, Neuorie ntierung
der Ehebesteuerung: Ehegattensplitting und
Lohnsteuerverfahren, 2005.
Stang Dahl, Tove (1984)
Women’s Rights to Money. In: International Journal of the
Sociology of Law, 12(2), 137-152.
Statistisches Bundesamt 2004
Leben und Arbeiten in Deutschland Ergebnisse des Mikrozensus 2003. Wiesbaden.
Vollmer, Franziska (1998)
Das Ehegattensplitting. Eine verfassungsrechtliche
Untersuchung der Einkommensbesteuerung von Eheleuten.
Baden-Baden.
- 14 -